It seems that England simply does not do well with people named Charles at the helm. The first of that name was beheaded. The second was deposed. Will there even be a third?
The Royals dont seem dysfunctional to me.The same as most families.
I dont know what Diana went through as a child but probably no more than any other child.Im sure she wasnt bonkers when she married Charles but eventually became that way with basicly not being loved by the man she married.
Charles needed a son and heir,Camilla, the woman he wanted was already married so he couldnt marry her,in stepped Diana.
I like Charles but have little sympathy for him but my opinion has changed at bit recently.
I saw a body language programme at the weekend on the Charles and Diana wedding.
It showed Charles flashing a smile at Diana then his face just dropped like a lead weight, as if to say'im so unhappy'.
Also, the classic piece of footage was shown when Charles was asked 'Are you in love?',Charles replies 'whatever in love means'.When they thought the camera had stopped rolling both of them looked sad and looked away from each other.
I thought they looked very happy and the boys are happy for them so its a new era.
I loooove Camillas feather headwear with her blessing outfit!!!
Lord Ellpus: It ill behooves an oik such as I to disagree in any way with such an august personage as yourself, milord, but disagree I fear I must.
I think we need them as much as they need us. Okay, they are too numerous, and most of them have a bad attitude. They could do with thinning out, and performance-testing. However I don't see us as a republic. Not if our Tony, his works, and his chosen companions are anything to go by. We need a monarch so as to be able to tell the politicians where they get off.
If we had to choose a president, who would get your vote? Derry Irvine? Charlie Faulkner? Neil Kinnock? Michael Heseltine? Lord Coe? Lord Robertson? Janet Street-Porter?
I can't see it, meself. I'll settle for King Charles and Queen Camilla, wirh Prince William waiting in the ante-chamber.
I didnt say that we should get rid of them, just stick them on a 1000 acre pheasant shooting farm and let them blast little furry things to their hearts content, if that is what they want out of life.
Just wheel out the most senior one when a ceremony is required.
Why they should have such wealth and yet treat the "ordinary" masses with such contempt is beyond me.
It will be interesting to have the "real" Charles exposed, when they go through the Duchy of Cornwall accounts next year. With all his millions, land, power and title, it still appears to be the case that he begrudges paying any tax AT ALL.
The situation with the Queen makes me laugh as well.....the fawning that goes on for one of her half hour visits is unbelievable. Valuable time and money is spent tarting up the buildings that she visits, because god forbid that she should actually see peeling paint on a wall.
They are simply descendants of powerful families from the past, who came over and took English land from English landowners, and have since intermarried with the same types of families around Europe.
If you were to follow a family tree for each Norman "Nobleman" who came over here in 1066, you would probably find that many of their descendants are still very wealthy, and still own a large proportion of the land, almost a thousand years later.
Maybe its an inbuilt thing with humans to have a desire to cheer on people who have inherited massive wealth, have never got their hands dirty, have never worried about how to pay a bill and basically do what they please throughout their lives.
Just count me out.
I used to think like that, and part of me still does. Buy me a few drinks, and get me started. No, it's my round.
Anyway, as long as there is inequality (are you any happier about Alan Sugar, Roman Abramovich, Bill Gates, Mohammed al-Fayed having so much more money than the rest of us?) I don't really mind the aristocracy hanging on to what they've got.
I wish only, that more of them would remember that noblesse oblige.
Some apparently think they have no obligation to society whatsoever...but I would not include the Queen in that, nor Prince Charles.
I think the real point is that the mornachy -- any monarchy --is an anachronism today. Like it or not, McT, the UK today resembles a republic far more than it does a monarchy. A monarchy implies at least a small measure of autocracy. The fact is that the Royals today have absolutely no political power. None. They are inedible decoration on the cake, is all. Tony Blair has to go to the Queen to ask her to dissolve Parliament because yhe country is due for an election. But this isn't even a formality; it is strictly ritual. The Queen has no right nor power to reject Tony's request. He makes the request formally merely because it is protocol to do so. When the Queen addresses Parliament, she is told what she must say. This is not a suggestion; it is an edict.
So, except for the eye-appeal, what is the point?
Merry Andrew wrote:I think the real point is that the mornachy -- any monarchy --is an anachronism today. Like it or not, McT, the UK today resembles a republic far more than it does a monarchy. A monarchy implies at least a small measure of autocracy. The fact is that the Royals today have absolutely no political power. None. They are inedible decoration on the cake, is all. Tony Blair has to go to the Queen to ask her to dissolve Parliament because yhe country is due for an election. But this isn't even a formality; it is strictly ritual. The Queen has no right nor power to reject Tony's request. He makes the request formally merely because it is protocol to do so. When the Queen addresses Parliament, she is told what she must say. This is not a suggestion; it is an edict.
So, except for the eye-appeal, what is the point?
Well, Andrew, we have "constitutional monarchies" nowadays here in Europe (in the UK since Walpole's times).
And a constitutional monarchy got qua deficione this republican (not to say 'democratic') element.
I know, Walter, but doesn't "Constitutional Monrachy" sound a bit like an oxymoron? What's the point of having a figurehead of state when there is a de facto head of state?
I'm a little bit out of my depth here, Andrew and Walter, talking about constitutional monarchies.
I'm happy in the knowledge we're using the Queen's English, the Queen's Highway, protected by the Queen's armed forces. The law is administered by a judiciary which owes its allegiance to the monarch. The power to enact laws derives from the monarch.
Ever since the excesses of the days of Charles I, the power of the monarch has rightly been curbed, but I don't see yet that we have got to the stage that the monarchy has no relevance in our society. I think it still has relevance, real as well as symbolic.
Merry Andrew wrote:I know, Walter, but doesn't "Constitutional Monrachy" sound a bit like an oxymoron? What's the point of having a figurehead of state when there is a de facto head of state?
Our 'figurehead' (=president) actually now starts for the first time to engage a bit more in daily political business than most (besides his predecessor Rau) of the other presidents.
On the other hand, neither our chancellor nor our president would get the idea to govern from their summer/weekend/holiday residence, - sorry, ranch I wanted to say.
(We know, however, that such was done by pre-1918 potentats here :wink: )
McTag wrote: ....but I don't see yet that we have got to the stage that the monarchy has no relevance in our society. I think it still has relevance, real as well as symbolic.
Back in elementary school, I was taught that the monarch in England is a figurehead, someone without real political power. This is in an American public school.
So the notion of English monarch=Figurehead is international.
Please give an example of real power for the English monarchy.
One thing I always notice about Charles is that whenever he is at a press call in Scotland he wears a kilt !! His new missus even wore a tam o' shanter complete with pheasant feathers the other day.
He is about as Scottish as David Beckham! How very patronising of him.
I hope he extends this tradition soon, if and when he visits Wales. He could dress as a coal miner, while Camilla could wear an apron and one of those Welsh hats that looks like a witches hat with the top cut off.
When he returns to England he could then don a Morris dancers outfit, to show us all how patriotic he is.
As he seems to enjoy displaying his heritage through clothing, he should really be wearing Lederhosen though, dont you think?
Like I said before, the English monarchy is England's business. You Brits pay for it, I don't. So if you want to continue it as a link to your traditions, go ahead.
If you are going to continue it, though, for olde tymes' sake, I would think that you would demand better from the people you hire to do it than the present inhabitiants of Buckingham Palace. They've certainly proved adept at carrying on; someone should inform them, however, that the job requirements are to carry on tradition.
It IS traditional for the Prince of Wales to carry on like a plonker.
I don't think I can defend the monarchy any more than I already have. There are faults, no doubt about that, which I have already mentioned.
But, are we ready to replace it? Would the country be better off without it? What would we replace it with? Would a president like Janet Street-Porter or
George Bush every four years be a step forward?
Wha'll be king but Charlie?
I can think of better people to get rid of than the Royals!!Dont forget the Queen now pays tax.
They are a business.In a way foreigners are paying for them as its them that come over here and visit all the historical places.
Im all for carrying on with tradition but dont forget fox hunting was a tradition ad I dont see the point in that.
McTag wrote:
But, are we ready to replace it? Would the country be better off without it? What would we replace it with? Would a president like Janet Street-Porter or
George Bush every four years be a step forward?
You have just presented a very good reason to keep it
Hmmm! George Bush in a Tiara......maybe I'm changing my mind.
Long live the Queen !
?
Lord Ellpus wrote:One thing I always notice about Charles is that whenever he is at a press call in Scotland he wears a kilt !! His new missus even wore a tam o' shanter complete with pheasant feathers the other day.
He is about as Scottish as David Beckham! How very patronising of him.
I hope he extends this tradition soon, if and when he visits Wales. He could dress as a coal miner, while Camilla could wear an apron and one of those Welsh hats that looks like a witches hat with the top cut off.
When he returns to England he could then don a Morris dancers outfit, to show us all how patriotic he is.
As he seems to enjoy displaying his heritage through clothing, he should really be wearing Lederhosen though, dont you think?
I thought Wales was in England, "is it not?" Did Wales have Coal Mines? What does Scotland have to do with all this?
What needs to be gettin rid of is those ridiculous World Organization's.
Tony Blair would make a great President for the UK.
